[2025:RJ-JP:40076] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13316/2025 Kamlesh Kumar Son Of Chandgi Ram, Aged About 46 Years, R/o L 502, Mahima Panorma, Jagatpura, Jaipur, Rajasthan. ----Petitioner/Plaintiff Versus 1. Preeti Sharma D/o Rajesh Kumar Sharma, Aged About 31 Years, R/o C 133, Indira Nagar, Jhunjhunu Town, Tehsil And District Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan. 2. Educare Public School, Dhola Khera, Tehsil Gudha District Jhunjhunu Through Its Secretary Preeti Sharma D/o Rajesh Kumar Sharma, Aged About 31 Years, R/o C 133, Indira Nagar, Jhunjhunu Town, Tehsil And District Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan. ----Respondents/Defendants For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Bharat Saini For Respondent(s) : Mr. Arun Singh Shekhawat HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GANESH RAM MEENA Order 20/09/2025 1. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner /plaintiff under Article 227 of the Constitution of India with a challenge to the order dated 07.08.2025 passed by the Court of learned District Judge, Jhunjhunu (Rajasthan) [for short ‘the Appellate Court’] in Civil Misc. Appeal No.09/2025 whereby the learned Appellate Court while allowing the appeal of the respondents/ defendants quashed and set aside the order dated 01.04.2025 passed by the Court of learned Civil Judge, Udaipurwati (for short ‘the trial [2025:RJ-JP:40076] (2 of 4) [CW-13316/2025] court’) in Civil Misc. Application No. 07/2025, whereby the application for temporary injunction filed by the petitioner /plaintiff was partially allowed and both the parties were directed to maintain status quo as regards the construction in view of the contract dated 06.05.2024 in between the parties. 2. The facts in brief of the matter are that a contract agreement was signed in between the parties as regards some construction to be made by the petitioner /plaintiff (contractor) over the premises of the respondents/ defendants and the respondents/ defendants restrained the petitioner /plaintiff from continuing the construction. 3. Being aggrieved by such act of the respondents/ defendants, the petitioner /plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction along-with an application for temporary injunction under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. The learned trial court partially allowed the application filed by the petitioner/ plaintiff under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC and directed both the parties to maintain status quo as regards the construction till the disposal of the suit. 4. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned trial court, the respondents/ defendants preferred an appeal before the Appellate Court which came to be allowed vide order dated 07.08.2025 and the order dated 01.04.2025 passed by the trial court on temporary injunction application was quashed and set aside. [2025:RJ-JP:40076] (3 of 4) [CW-13316/2025] 5. Having considered the submissions made by the counsel appearing for the parties, the Court finds that the petitioner/ plaintiff being a Contractor in regard to some dispute about the construction, if he incurs some losses and proves fault of the respondents/ defendants by his evidence, he could be compensated at the time of disposal of the suit but if the temporary injunction order passed by the trial court is allowed to sustain, the respondents/ defendants may incur huge losses which could not be compensated at the time of disposal of the suit. 6. This Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has a very limited scope. The Court cannot act as an Appellate Court. 7. Having taking into consideration the totality of the facts of the case and more particularly the fact that the petitioner/ plaintiff could be compensated for his losses, if proved, at the stage of disposal of the suit but the respondents/ defendants could not be compensated if the temporary injunction order is allowed to sustain. 8. In view of the discussion made above, the Court finds no ground to interfere with in the order passed by the learned Appellate Court in Civil Misc. Appeal No. 09/2025. 9. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. [2025:RJ-JP:40076] (4 of 4) [CW-13316/2025] 10. In view of the order passed in the main petition, the stay application and pending application/s, if any, also stand dismissed. (GANESH RAM MEENA),J Sharma NK-Dy. Registrar/33